Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV45265, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45265    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rachel C. Howell

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2021, Plaintiffs Danae Locatelli (“Locatelli”), Danielle Peckham (“Peckham”), Deborah Koch (“Koch”) and Duane Otrambo (“Otrambo”) filed this action against Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“KFHP”), Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KFH”) and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“SCPMG”) for strict products liability – design defect, strict products liability – manufacturing defect, strict products liability – failure to warn, products liability – negligence and medical negligence.

On December 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, adding Defendants Livanova Deutschland, GMBH (“LD”) and Livanova Holding USA, Inc. (“LH”).

On March 15, 2022, KFHP, KHF, and SCPMG filed an answer. On April 25, 2022, LD and LH filed an answer.

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rachel C. Howell, to be heard on February 16, 2023.

There is no trial date currently set, as the case is stayed pending arbitration.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court admit Rachel C. Howell pro hac vice.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court, rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

The application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Howell is in good standing in Pennsylvania and will be associated with California attorneys Adam Shea, Esq. She is not regularly employed in California and does not regularly engage in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

Howell filed an application to be admitted Pro Hac Vice, which included the following information: her residential and office address, the courts that she is admitted to (along with dates of admissions), assurance she is in good standing, a record of all California pro hac vice appearances in the last two years, and information on the local attorney of record. Terminix submitted proof of service on all parties.

Howell submitted a declaration of service and payment on the California State Bar. However, there is no proof of payment on the State Bar. The Court grants the motion, conditional upon counsel providing proof of payment on the State Bar.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rachel C. Howell is GRANTED, conditional upon Plaintiff submitting proof of payment on the California State Bar. 

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.